1 Analysis of Samples Collected at Special-Study

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

1 Analysis of Samples Collected at Special-Study 1 ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES COLLECTED AT SPECIAL-STUDY SITES DELAWARE RIVER BASIN NAWQA PROJECT The National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program of the U.S. Geological Survey is a long-term program with goals to describe the status and trends of water-quality conditions for a large, representative part of the Nation’s ground- and surface-water resources; provide an improved understanding of the primary natural and human factors affecting these observed conditions and trends; and provide information that supports development and evaluation of management, regulatory, and monitoring decisions by other agencies. Assessment activities are being conducted in 53 study units (major watersheds and aquifer systems) that represent a wide range of environmental set- tings nationwide and that account for a large percentage of the Nation’s water use. A wide array of chemical constituents will be measured in ground water, surface water, streambed sediments, and fish tissues. The coordinated application of comparative hydrologic studies at a wide range of spatial and temporal scales will provide information for decision making by water-resources managers and a foundation for aggregation and comparison of findings to address water-quality issues of regional and national interest. NAWQA study units are divided into three groups that are studied intensively on a rotational basis. Three NAWQA studies have been active in the state of Pennsylvania. The Lower Susquehanna (LSUS) study unit conducted intensive sampling from 1993 through 1995 and is currently in a low-intensity phase. The Alleghney and Monongahela River Basins (ALMN) study unit conducted intensive sampling from 1996 through 1998 and is currently in a low-intensity phase. The Delaware River Basin (DELR) study unit started intensive sampling in 1999 and will complete this phase of the study in 2001. It will then enter the low-intensity phase and is scheduled to resume intensive sampling in 2008. Communication and coordination between USGS personnel and other local, State, and federal interests are critical components of the NAWQA Pro- gram. Each study unit has a local liaison committee consisting of representatives from key federal, State, and local water resources agencies, Indian nations, and universities in the study unit. Liaison committees typically meet semiannually to discuss their information needs, monitoring plans and progress, desired information products, and opportunities to collaborate efforts among the agencies. Additional information about the NAWQA Program is available through the world wide web at http://water.er.usgs.gov/nawqa/nawqa_home.html. Delaware River Basin (DELR) NAWQA fixed stations (fig. 10) are: Delaware River at Port Jervis, NY (01434000); Jordan Creek near Schnecksville, PA (01451800); Lehigh River at Glendon, PA (01454700); Delaware River at Trenton, NJ (01463500); Little Neshaminy Creek at Valley Rd. near Neshaminy, PA (01464907); Cooper River at Haddonfield, NJ (01467150); Tulpehocken Creek near Bernville, PA (01470779); French Creek near Phoenixville, PA (01472157); Schuylkill River at Philadelphia, PA (01474500); and Raccoon Creek near Swedesboro, NJ (01477120) (Figure 10). Data from Pennsylvania fixed stations are published in the continuous-record section of this report. Additional data on bed sediment, fish tissue, fish community, and synoptic sam- pling sites can be found in the special-studies section of this report. A complete list of Delaware NAWQA data can be found in ‘Water Resources Data, New Jersey, Water Year 2000’, Water-Data Report NJ-00-3. 2 ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES COLLECTED AT SPECIAL-STUDY SITES DELAWARE RIVER BASIN NAWQA PROJECT Laboratory Measurements Samples for biochemical-oxygen demand, fecal coliform and enterococcus bacteria, and hexavalent chromium are analyzed at the New Jersey Depart- ment of Health, Public Health and Environmental Laboratories. Samples for nutrients are analyzed at the New Jersey Department of Health or at the U.S. Geological Survey Laboratory in Arvada, Colorado. Sediment samples--parameter codes, 80154, 80157, and 80164--are analyzed in the U.S. Geological Sur- vey Laboratories in Iowa City, Iowa. All other samples are analyzed in the U.S. Geological Survey laboratory in Arvada, Colorado. Methods used in analyz- ing sediment samples and computing sediment records are given in TWRI, Book 5, Chap. C1. Methods used by the U.S. Geological Survey laboratory are given in TWRI, Book 1, Chap. D2; Book 3, Chap. C2; Book 5, Chap. A1, A3, A4, and A5. These methods are consistent with ASTM standards and generally follow ISO standards. Analyses of pesticides in surface-water samples (schedule 2001) Selected water samples from DELR-NAWQA study sites were analyzed for pesticides on schedule 2001 during the 2000 water year. This table lists the pesticides on the schedule, the unit of measure (micrograms per liter, µg/L), the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Information System parameter code, and the reporting level. Only pesticides measured at or above the minimum reporting level for one or more samples are listed in the water-quality tables. SCHEDULE DESCRIPTION.--Pesticides in filtered water extracted on C-18 Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) cartridge and analyzed by Gas Chromatography/ Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). SAMPLE REQUIREMENTS.--1 liter of water filtered through 0.7-micron glass-fiber depth filter, chilled at 4o C (packed in ice). CONTAINER REQUIREMENTS.--1 liter baked amber glass bottle (GCC) from NWQL. PCODE.--The USGS/EPA parameter code. MRL.--Minimum reporting level. MRL MRL PCode Compound Name PCode Compound Name (µg/L) (µg/L) 82660 2,6-Diethylaniline 0.003 82667 Parathion-methyl 0.006 49260 Acetochlor 0.002 39415 Metolachlor 0.002 46342 Alachlor 0.002 82630 Metribuzin 0.004 34253 alpha-HCH 0.002 82671 Molinate 0.004 39632 Atrazine 0.001 82684 Napropamide 0.003 82673 Benfluralin 0.002 34653 p,p‘-DDE 0.006 04028 Butylate 0.002 39542 Parathion 0.004 82680 Carbaryl 0.003 82669 Pebulate 0.004 82674 Carbofuran 0.003 82683 Pendimethalin 0.004 38933 Chlorpyrifos 0.004 82687 cis-Permethrin 0.005 04041 Cyanazine 0.004 82664 Phorate 0.002 82682 Dacthal 0.002 04037 Prometon 0.018 04040 Deethylatrazine 0.002 82676 Propyzamide 0.003 39572 Diazinon 0.002 04024 Propachlor 0.007 39381 Dieldrin 0.001 82679 Propanil 0.004 82677 Disulfoton 0.017 82685 Propargite 0.013 82668 EPTC 0.002 04035 Simazine 0.005 82663 Ethalfluralin 0.004 82670 Tebuthiuron 0.010 82672 Ethoprophos 0.003 82665 Terbacil 0.007 04095 Fonofos 0.003 82675 Terbufos 0.013 39341 Lindane 0.004 04022 Terbuthylazine 0.1 82666 Linuron 0.002 82681 Thiobencarb 0.002 39532 Malathion 0.005 82678 Triallate 0.001 82686 Azinphos-methyl 0.001 82661 Trifluralin 0.002 3 ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES COLLECTED AT SPECIAL-STUDY SITES DELAWARE RIVER BASIN NAWQA PROJECT Analyses of volatile organic compounds in surface-water and ground-water samples (schedule 2020/2021) Selected surface water samples from DELR-NAWQA study sites were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in water year 2000. The National Water Quality Lab (NWQL) created a method for accurate determination of VOCs in water in the nanogram per liter range, schedules 2020/2021. The method described in USGS Open-File Report 97-829 (Connor and others) is similar to USEPA method 524-2 (Mund, 1995) and the method described by Rose and Schroeder (1995). Minor improvements to instrument operating conditions include the following: additional compounds, quantitation ions that are different from those recommended in USEPA Method 524.2 because of interferences from the additional compounds, and a data reporting strategy for mea- suring detected compounds extrapolated at less than the lowest calibration standard or measured at less than the reporting limit. The minimum reporting limit (MRL) is introduced as a statistically defined reporting limit designed to limit false positives and false negatives to less than 1 percent. This table lists the volatile organic compounds on the schedule, the unit of measure (micrograms per liter (µg/L), the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Information System parameter code, the Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) compound name, and the National Water Quality Laboratory compound name. Positive detections measured at less than MRL but greater than or equal to the long-term method-detection limit are reported as estimated concentrations (E) to alert the data user to decreased confidence in accurate quantitation. Values for analytes in the 2020/2021 schedules are preceded by an "E" in the following situations: 1. When the calculated concentration is less than the lowest calibration standard. The analyte meets all identification criteria to be positively identi- fied, but the amount detected is below where it can be reliably quantified. 2. If a sample is diluted for any reason. The method reporting level is multiplied by the dilution factor to obtain the adjusted method reporting level. Values below the lowest calibration standard, multiplied by the dilution factor are qualified with an "E". For example, a value of 0.19 in a 1:2 dilution is reported as E0.1. 3. If the set spike has recoveries out of the specified range (60-140%). 4. If the analyte is also detected in the set blank. If the value in the sample is less than five times the blank value and greater than the blank value plus the long term method detection limit, the value is preceded by an "E" to indicate that the analyte is positively identified but not positively quantified because the analyte was also detected in the blank. Only VOCs detected for one or more samples are listed in the water-quality tables. 4 ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES COLLECTED AT SPECIAL-STUDY SITES DELAWARE RIVER BASIN NAWQA PROJECT SCHEDULE DESCRIPTION.--The sample water is actively purged with helium to extract the volatile organic compounds. The volatile compounds are trapped onto a sorbent trap, thermally desorbed, separated by a megabore gas chromatographic capillary column, and finally determined by a full scan quadropole mass spectrometer.
Recommended publications
  • Assessment of Public Comment on Draft Trout Stream Management Plan
    Assessment of public comments on draft New York State Trout Stream Management Plan OCTOBER 27, 2020 Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor | Basil Seggos, Commissioner A draft of the Fisheries Management Plan for Inland Trout Streams in New York State (Plan) was released for public review on May 26, 2020 with the comment period extending through June 25, 2020. Public comment was solicited through a variety of avenues including: • a posting of the statewide public comment period in the Environmental Notice Bulletin (ENB), • a DEC news release distributed statewide, • an announcement distributed to all e-mail addresses provided by participants at the 2017 and 2019 public meetings on trout stream management described on page 11 of the Plan [353 recipients, 181 unique opens (58%)], and • an announcement distributed to all subscribers to the DEC Delivers Freshwater Fishing and Boating Group [138,122 recipients, 34,944 unique opens (26%)]. A total of 489 public comments were received through e-mail or letters (Appendix A, numbered 1-277 and 300-511). 471 of these comments conveyed specific concerns, recommendations or endorsements; the other 18 comments were general statements or pertained to issues outside the scope of the plan. General themes to recurring comments were identified (22 total themes), and responses to these are included below. These themes only embrace recommendations or comments of concern. Comments that represent favorable and supportive views are not included in this assessment. Duplicate comment source numbers associated with a numbered theme reflect comments on subtopics within the general theme. Theme #1 The statewide catch and release (artificial lures only) season proposed to run from October 16 through March 31 poses a risk to the sustainability of wild trout populations and the quality of the fisheries they support that is either wholly unacceptable or of great concern, particularly in some areas of the state; notably Delaware/Catskill waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimates of Natural Streamflow at Two Streamgages on the Esopus Creek, New York, Water Years 1932 to 2012
    Prepared in cooperation with the New York City Department of Environmental Protection Estimates of Natural Streamflow at Two Streamgages on the Esopus Creek, New York, Water Years 1932 to 2012 Scientific Investigations Report 2015–5050 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover. The West Basin of Ashokan Reservoir at sunset. Photograph by Elizabeth Nystrom, 2013. Estimates of Natural Streamflow at Two Streamgages on the Esopus Creek, New York, Water Years 1932 to 2012 By Douglas A. Burns and Christopher L. Gazoorian Prepared in cooperation with the New York City Department of Environmental Protection Scientific Investigations Report 2015–5050 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2015 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. Suggested citation: Burns, D.A., and Gazoorian, C.L., 2015, Estimates of natural streamflow at two streamgages on the Esopus Creek, New York, water years 1932–2012: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 3. Water Quality
    Table of Contents Table of Contents Table of Contents.................................................................................................................. i List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ v List of Figures....................................................................................................................... vii Acknowledgements............................................................................................................... xi Errata Sheet Issued May 4, 2011 .......................................................................................... xiii 1. Introduction........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 What is the purpose and scope of this report? ......................................................... 1 1.2 What constitutes the New York City water supply system? ................................... 1 1.3 What are the objectives of water quality monitoring and how are the sampling programs organized? ........................................................................... 3 1.4 What types of monitoring networks are used to provide coverage of such a large watershed? .................................................................................................. 5 1.5 How do the different monitoring efforts complement each other? .......................... 9 1.6 How many water samples did DEP collect
    [Show full text]
  • Catskill Trends
    Catskill Trends Mike McHale, Doug Burns, Jason Siemion, Mike Antidormi, Greg Lawrence U.S. Geological Survey, Troy NY New York Catskill LTM Network New York NADP and MDN Station Mean Acidity 1991-2014 60 40 Neversink River 20 Biscuit Brook 0 Rondout Creek -20 Tison's Creek in micromoles per liter Acid Neutralizing Capacity, Winnisook -40 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 pH, in pH units Catskill Sampling Water sampling at 5 streams in the Catskill Mountains Monthly sampling plus storms ~ 35 samples per year Winnisook soils were sampled in 1993 (Javier Ruiz) and 2012 (McHale). Fall Brook Soils were sampled in 2001 (Lawrence) and 2011 (Lawrence and others). There is an NADP site at Biscuit Brook Rondout Creek above Peekamoose (RC) Winnisook Watershed (WN) on the slopes of Slide Mountain in the headwaters of the Neversink River basin Biscuit Brook eq/L) 16 50140 eq/L) ARP Emmissions 14 NY68 Deposition 120 Biscuit Brook ( conc. 40 2- 4 12 100 30 10 80 8 60 20 6 40 10 4 20 2 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 20152015 Biscuit NTN annual volume-weighted SO annual volume-weighted NTN Biscuit Biscuit NTN annual volume-weighted ( SO42- conc. annual volume-weighted NTN Biscuit EPA Acid Rain Program SO2 annual emissions (million tons) SO2(million EPA annual emissions Rain Program Acid EPA Acid Rain Program SO2 annual emissions (million tons) EPA Acid Rain Program SO2 annual emissions (million tons)EPASO2 (million annual Rain Program emissions Acid Year Biscuit Brook 7 2860 eq/L) ARP Emmissions 26 NY68 Deposition 6 Biscuit Brook 50 conc.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Fishing Rights Neversink River
    Public Fishing Rights Maps Neversink River Photo taken by Ed Ostapczuk About Public Fishing Rights Public Fishing Rights (PFR’s) are perma- nent easements purchased by the NYSDEC from willing landowners, giving anglers the right to fish and walk along the bank (usually a 33’ strip on one or both banks of the stream). This right is for the purpose of fishing only and no other purpose. Treat the land with respect to insure the continu- ation of this right and privilege. Fishing privileges may be available on some other private lands with permission of the land owner. Courtesy toward the land-owner and respect for their property will insure their continued use. Description of Fishery These generalized location maps are in- tended to aid anglers in finding PFR seg- The Neversink River contains a quality wild brown trout population, and ments and are not survey quality. Width of is stocked annually with over 5,000 brown trout. This tail-water fishery displayed PFR may be wider than reality to contains good coldwater habitat throughout the summer, providing anglers make it more visible on the maps. Please an opportunity to catch quality fish during the summer months when other look for this PFR sign to ensure that you streams are too warm to fish. are in the right location and have legal ac- Note: cess to the stream bank. Special regulations apply. See Fishing Regulations Guide. Fish Species Present Brown Trout Location Brook Trout For more information on this creek or if Sullivan Rainbow Trout you believe PFR marked areas on these County maps are incorrect or missing PFR signs, please call the Region 3 Fisheries office: (845) 256-3161.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Resources Plan ______
    Chapter 11 Natural Resources Plan __________ Introduction The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) requires that municipal Comprehensive Plans address resource preservation, specifically identifying natural, cultural, and historic resources. The natural resources noted by the MPC are wetlands and other aquifer recharge zones, woodlands, steep slope areas, prime agricultural land, floodplains, and “unique natural areas.” The MPC adds that municipalities are not limited by this list, but may provide for the protection of other resources of local importance. In addition to these resources, this chapter will identify energy conservation objectives for the planning Region. Prime agricultural land has been previously discussed in Chapter 7, the Future Land Use Plan. Historic Resources are addressed in Chapter 12, the Historic and Cultural Resources Plan. The results of the citizen survey indicated that the Region’s residents are concerned about natural resource preservation. Respondents also indicated a high level of interest in farmland and open space preservation. NATURAL RESOURCES PLAN Natural resources contribute to the economic activity, environmental health, and quality of life of a community. Parks, open space, woodlands, steep slopes, streams, wetlands, and farmlands are all resources that are aesthetically pleasing, and provide economic as well as environmental benefits. One example of this is the way that floodplains and wetlands act as natural storage basins in periods of high water and help to improve water quality by filtering out sediment and pollutants. Natural and Scenic Resources Goal: Protect and preserve the natural and scenic resources and beauty of the region. Natural and Scenic Resources Objectives: • Encourage new planting of trees within developments.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Trout Waters (Natural Reproduction) - September 2021
    Pennsylvania Wild Trout Waters (Natural Reproduction) - September 2021 Length County of Mouth Water Trib To Wild Trout Limits Lower Limit Lat Lower Limit Lon (miles) Adams Birch Run Long Pine Run Reservoir Headwaters to Mouth 39.950279 -77.444443 3.82 Adams Hayes Run East Branch Antietam Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.815808 -77.458243 2.18 Adams Hosack Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.914780 -77.467522 2.90 Adams Knob Run Birch Run Headwaters to Mouth 39.950970 -77.444183 1.82 Adams Latimore Creek Bermudian Creek Headwaters to Mouth 40.003613 -77.061386 7.00 Adams Little Marsh Creek Marsh Creek Headwaters dnst to T-315 39.842220 -77.372780 3.80 Adams Long Pine Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters to Long Pine Run Reservoir 39.942501 -77.455559 2.13 Adams Marsh Creek Out of State Headwaters dnst to SR0030 39.853802 -77.288300 11.12 Adams McDowells Run Carbaugh Run Headwaters to Mouth 39.876610 -77.448990 1.03 Adams Opossum Creek Conewago Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.931667 -77.185555 12.10 Adams Stillhouse Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.915470 -77.467575 1.28 Adams Toms Creek Out of State Headwaters to Miney Branch 39.736532 -77.369041 8.95 Adams UNT to Little Marsh Creek (RM 4.86) Little Marsh Creek Headwaters to Orchard Road 39.876125 -77.384117 1.31 Allegheny Allegheny River Ohio River Headwater dnst to conf Reed Run 41.751389 -78.107498 21.80 Allegheny Kilbuck Run Ohio River Headwaters to UNT at RM 1.25 40.516388 -80.131668 5.17 Allegheny Little Sewickley Creek Ohio River Headwaters to Mouth 40.554253 -80.206802
    [Show full text]
  • State Water Plan Subbasin 03C Tulpehocken Creek Watershed (Schuylkill River) Berks and Lebanon Counties
    Updated 2/2004 Watershed Restoration Action Strategy (WRAS) State Water Plan Subbasin 03C Tulpehocken Creek Watershed (Schuylkill River) Berks and Lebanon Counties Introduction Subbasin 03C, which includes Tulpehocken Creek, Hay Creek, and the Schuylkill River and its tributaries from Tuckerton to Birdsboro, lies within the western third of Berks County and eastern corner of Lebanon County and drains a 358-square mile area. A total of 242 streams flow for 477 miles through the subbasin. The subbasin is included in HUC Area 2040203, Schuylkill River, a Category I, FY99/2000 Priority watershed under the Unified Watershed Assessment. Geology/Soils: The upper half of the basin is located within the Ridge and Valley Ecoregion. The upper half is within the Northern Shale Valleys and Slopes (67b), which is comprised of shales interbedded with limestone and dolomite of the Martinsburg Formation. This is an area of rolling hills and many small streams. Soils formed from the Martinsburg Formation have a slow rate of infiltration. This area has soils with a rather high runoff potential and streams with a flashy nature, with very low, low flows and very high, high flows. The middle of the basin lies within a low, flat carbonate valley that is part of the Northern Limestone/Dolomite Valleys (67a) ecoregion. The limestone soils have high infiltration rates due to sinkholes and secondary faults. The limestone valley maintains good stream base flow during droughts. These limestone-derived soils are the most productive agricultural soils in the subbasin. Numerous quarries are located in this portion of the subbasin. The southeastern edge of the subbasin lies within the Northern Piedmont, Triassic Lowlands (64a) ecoregion.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood of April 2-3, 2005, Neversink River Basin, New York
    Prepared in cooperation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood of April 2–3, 2005, Neversink River Basin, New York Open-File Report 2006–1319 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover. Center photo: Neversink River flow over Guymard Turnpike at Myers Grove, New York. Left photo: Neversink River at upstream side of Guymard Turnpike bridge at Myers Grove, New York. Right photo: Neversink River overflow at intersection of Guymard Turnpike and Shore Drive at Myers Grove, New York, taken April 3, 2005. Flood of April 2–3, 2005, Neversink River Basin, New York By Thomas P. Suro and Gary D. Firda Prepared in cooperation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency Open-File Report 2006–1319 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark D. Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2006 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Suro, T.P.
    [Show full text]
  • Controls of Stream Chemistry and Fish Populations in the Neversink Watershed, Catskill Mountains, New York
    Prepared in cooperation with the New York City Department of Environmental Protection Controls of Stream Chemistry and Fish Populations in the Neversink Watershed, Catskill Mountains, New York he Neversink Watershed Study was initiated in 1991 to T develop an understanding of the key natural processes that control water quality within the forested, 166 km2 64 mi2), Neversink River watershed; part of the New York City drinking water supply system, in the Catskill Mountain region of New York. The study entailed (1) hydrological investigations of water movement from the atmosphere to streams, (2) biogeochemical investigations of nitrogen and calcium, important nutrients in forest and aquatic ecosystems whose availability has been altered by acidic deposition, (3) an investigation of elevational patterns in atmospheric deposition, and (4) fisheries investigations to determine the relative importance of physical habitat and acidic deposition in controlling the abundance and By Gregory B. Lawrence1, Douglas A. Burns1, Barry P. Baldigo1 diversity of fish species in the watershed. This report summarizes Peter S. Murdoch1 and Gary M. Lovett2 the results of these investigations, which have also been presented, 1U.S. Geological Survey, Troy, New York in detail, in peer-reviewed technical articles and reports that are 2Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, New York cited throughout the text. Departmentof the Interior WRIR 00-4040 U.S, Geological Survey January 2001 1 INTRODUCTION water is altered by chemical and biological processes that interact in complicated ways. An understanding of these The City of New York relies on six reservoirs in the processes is essential for discerning the effects of human Catskill Mountains to provide 90% of its water supply to activities from undisturbed conditions, and reducing 8 million residents.
    [Show full text]
  • Relations of Environmental Factors with Mussel-Species Richness in the Neversink River, New York
    1 Prepared in cooperation with The Nature Conservancy and Sullivan County Division of Planning and Environmental Management Relations of Environmental Factors with Mussel-Species Richness in the Neversink River, New York Significant Findings • A 6-year study of mussel communities and their habitat in the Neversink River basin in southeastern New York found that the principal factors apparently affecting mussel-species richness were site (reach) elevation, drainage-area size, channel width, bottom- material composition, water velocity, shear stress at bankfull discharge, and water quality (acid- neutralizing capacity (ANC) and concentrations of calcium, phosphorus, and sulfate). Together these 10 factors explained as much as 94 percent of the variability in mussel-species richness across the watershed. Swollen wedgemussel (Alasmidonta varicosa) from the Neversink River. • The number of species in mussel communities throughout the basin typically increases in a downstream progression from zero or one species in upstream sites to as many as six species in downstream sites. • A recently removed dam in the lower part of the river may have confined populations of two rare mussel species to lower reaches of the Neversink River; its removal in 2004 could allow those species to populate additional reaches in the upper basin. U.S. Department of the Interior Printed on recycled paper Open-File Report 2007–1283 U.S. Geological Survey March 2008 2 Introduction flow patterns have recently been (richness) were quantified through 2-hour proposed by TNC and could benefit snorkeling searches at 28 sites during the Declines in the distribution, the established mussel populations summer of 1997; of these, 17 were on abundance, and diversity of freshwater- and aquatic communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Class a Wild Trout Waters Created: August 16, 2021 Definition of Class
    Class A Wild Trout Waters Created: August 16, 2021 Definition of Class A Waters: Streams that support a population of naturally produced trout of sufficient size and abundance to support a long-term and rewarding sport fishery. Management: Natural reproduction, wild populations with no stocking. Definition of Ownership: Percent Public Ownership: the percent of stream section that is within publicly owned land is listed in this column, publicly owned land consists of state game lands, state forest, state parks, etc. Important Note to Anglers: Many waters in Pennsylvania are on private property, the listing or mapping of waters by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission DOES NOT guarantee public access. Always obtain permission to fish on private property. Percent Lower Limit Lower Limit Length Public County Water Section Fishery Section Limits Latitude Longitude (miles) Ownership Adams Carbaugh Run 1 Brook Headwaters to Carbaugh Reservoir pool 39.871810 -77.451700 1.50 100 Adams East Branch Antietam Creek 1 Brook Headwaters to Waynesboro Reservoir inlet 39.818420 -77.456300 2.40 100 Adams-Franklin Hayes Run 1 Brook Headwaters to Mouth 39.815808 -77.458243 2.18 31 Bedford Bear Run 1 Brook Headwaters to Mouth 40.207730 -78.317500 0.77 100 Bedford Ott Town Run 1 Brown Headwaters to Mouth 39.978611 -78.440833 0.60 0 Bedford Potter Creek 2 Brown T 609 bridge to Mouth 40.189160 -78.375700 3.30 0 Bedford Three Springs Run 2 Brown Rt 869 bridge at New Enterprise to Mouth 40.171320 -78.377000 2.00 0 Bedford UNT To Shobers Run (RM 6.50) 2 Brown
    [Show full text]